“Those are not just words. It’s a promise.”

Posted on May 31, 2005 by sheila

Judging from this video, the situation is far more dire than I thought.

This entry was posted in Miscellania. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to “Those are not just words. It’s a promise.”

  1. peteb says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:37 pm

    “He rebuked psychiatry, saying there was no science behind it”??

    Tom, Tom, Tom.. just because the con trick you’ve hidden behind has an ‘ology’ at the end.. that doesn’t make IT a science.

  2. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    And he made HORRIBLE comments about Brooke Shields – who went through post-partum depression. Like – she shouldn’t have been on drugs, because drugs are eeeevil. All health, all truth, comes from Scientology. Yeah, well, Tom, I think making public comments about someone you don’t know – and judging her choice to get healthy through going on anti-depressants – is feckin’ evil.

    He really looks so NUTS in that clip. Like – Tom, there’s a difference between being a powerful ACTOR and a powerful HUMAN BEING. You’re not fooling me, with your: “I am worried about every person in this room. And I mean that.” Like – he’s playing his life as though he’s in close-up. “Ready for my closeup! Here’s where I turn on that Tom Cruise power.”

    He’s really nuts.

  3. beth says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    he is clearly on some form of illegal substance. i mean, CLEARLY. i don’t think insanity has anything to do with it.

    have you ever seen the scene in trainspotting where spud snorts some speed before the job interview? that’s what he reminds me of. seriously.

  4. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:43 pm

    I think he’s brainwashed by Scientology. Which is hugely anti-drug. I don’t think he’s on drugs. I think he is fired up with the righteouness of his “cause”. He’s a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists always come off as a little nuts to those of us who – er- retain our critical faculties.

    He truly believes we are all floundering in evil ignorance. If we ‘succumb’ to having to take anti-depressants, or if we ‘succumb’ to having to take a feckin’ Motrin – we need Scientology to show us the way out.

  5. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    Although, who knows. You aren’t supposed to be gay and be in Scientology either … so who knows the levels of denial that are going on here.

  6. beth says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    ok, where does the gay thing come from? i have a shit-ton of gay friends and i like to think my gay-dar is highly attuned. maybe it’s because tom cruise in top gun was the first crush of my life (i was five when i saw it at the drive-in with my parents)…but i don’t get any gay vibe from him. please don’t stone me.

  7. peteb says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    “He truly believes we are all floundering in evil ignorance”

    I hadn’t actually considered that, Sheila.. But it’s exactly right.

    Whether he’s become unhinged as well – whereas previously he would have bitten his tongue and played the PR role as designated by the movie publicists – well.. it’s probably just an additional element.. no doubt brought on by the years of previously mentioned deep, deep denial.

  8. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:55 pm

    Stone you … hahahahaha

    I mean, to be honest: I don’t know the man. But the rumors have persisted since he began acting – and there is quite a bit of evidence that his involvement in Scientology (which says it can “cure” homosexuality) had something to do, in the beginning, with his internal struggle with his sexuality.

    I also know people who know for a fact.

    You wouldn’t get the gay-dar thing with him – he is a masterful liar. This is why he’s a good actor, too (I may be alone in thinking that?? I actually really like him. I can ignore Days of Thunder … heh heh) But having known a ton of people in the closet – Tom seems like a classic case to me. An in-the-closet case. He never “dates”, he CAN’T. His relationships have been with younger and younger women … his act wouldn’t fly with an experienced woman. This is very in-the-closet stuff.

    To me – he doesn’t seem GAY. He seems VICIOUSLY in the closet. Which means: arrested development, and somehow … a lack of sincerity. He can’t be sincere. Because it would be too revealing.

  9. beth says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    that’s really too bad…i was asking where it came from b/c i didn’t know, not cause i thought ppl were wrong. i would imagine there’s someone somewhere who DOES know for a fact, like you said. that’s why i asked. (got any dirt? let’s hear it! ;-))

  10. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:58 pm

    That one clip reminds me of the friends I have lost to fucking born-again Christianity. Suddenly they are “worried” about me, they are “praying for me”. Meanwhile: My FRIEND is gone. Their PERSONALITY changes. Their soul has been abducted. I know that they feel “saved” but … sorry. They come off as feckin’ wack-jobs, and they are no longer AT HOME in their eyeballs. That’s what Cruise seems like to me, suddenly.

  11. peteb says:
    May 31, 2005 at 4:59 pm

    He can be a good actor.. but you’d need to ignore Far and Away as well as Days of Thunder..

  12. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    I know that he sued National Enquirer years ago – they had run a story on … I think he had fucked some guy at a dance club? Alex would know. Like, it was a “bad” story (“bad” in Cruise’s worldview, I mean)… and Cruise sued, and got the story suppressed. But the rumors have followed him … getting weirder and weirder the older he gets.

    I’m normally not wacky about the whole “outing” process. I don’t like it. And I don’t think Cruise should be “outted”. If he wants to come out, let him do it. I’d throw a party for him if he did!!

    His in-the-closet status is just something I’m interested in, in a ghoulish inappropriate way.

  13. beth says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:03 pm

    “in a ghoulish inappropriate way.”

    that’s the best way. :-) i have lots of things i’m interested in like that.

  14. Laura says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    I dare him to tell a seriously pms’ing woman not to take a Midol..he’ll get his nuts ripped off.

  15. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    beth – totally. Like I just can’t justify my interest in this in ANY way that isn’t embarrassing.

    I’m just fascinated by it. In the same way I am fascinated by ANYBODY who is SO unaware of themselves. I don’t know. I just want to know what it’s really like to BE him.

  16. peteb says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:49 pm

    Well.. while I wouldn’t normally care what Mr Cruise’s opinions or self-denials are.. I’d justify my current interest by his declared self-righteousness (combined with his evangelism for the Cult).. for me, that demands a certain level of questioning that appeared to be lacking in his recent appearances.

  17. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 5:52 pm

    That one interview clip makes it looks like he wants to break into my house and make me eat the entire canon of L. Ron Hubbard. Because hes’ so “worried” about me. And that is his “promise”. (The way he says “That’s a promise” sounds more like it’s a threat.)

    I can just see the gleam in his eyes at the thought of shoving the pages of Dianetics down my throat like that awful last scene in Cook, wife, thief, lover, man-servant, whathaveyou.

    He’s a convert. Like VS Naipaul wrote about in his 2 great books about the 4 non-Arab countries who converted to Islam: BEWARE THE ZEAL OF THE CONVERT. They are always more eager to show the purity of their beliefs than those who have held the same beliefs for a long time.

    Did I just compare Tom Cruise to Indonesia and Pakistan? Well, yes. I did.

    I think I’M the one who’s nuts.

  18. JFH says:
    May 31, 2005 at 6:15 pm

    Sheila,

    Not all (or even most) “born-again” Christians have cult-like personalities (but you already know that). The biggest problem with some evangelicals is that some try to convert people that are ALREADY Christians. Are these the people you’re talking about? For example, “But John, you CAN’T be a Christian unless you are BORN AGAIN… Your baptism and being raised as a Christian don’t count!”

    Non-Christian converts that are friends of mine, I can easily handle with a line from Die Hard, “Welcome to the party, pal”!

    Message to all those born-again people who DON’T get it:
    Do I KNOW the day I was saved? Of course not! Do I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior? Of course… Move along now, nothing to convert here…

  19. Independent George says:
    May 31, 2005 at 6:47 pm

    Personally, I think he’s a great actor.

    You might have to ignore Days of Thunder and Far and Away to call him that, but you’d have to ignore All the Right Moves, Born on the Fourth of July, Magnolia, Rain Man (I actually thought his performance was the one more deserving of the Oscar), and a whole lot more to consider him anything less. Even Brando had his share of stinkers.

    Was he always like this? Was he just playing a role all these years? Or is this something entirely new? Or are we misjudging him even now – is this his true self, or did the cameras just catch him on a bad day?

  20. Linus says:
    May 31, 2005 at 6:48 pm

    Well, that clip certainly explains a lot about his acting, doesn’t it? Heh.

  21. Independent George says:
    May 31, 2005 at 6:53 pm

    Or, maybe Stanley Kaufman got it wrong. Maybe the portal just goes into Tom Cruise’s head. Actually, that would probably explain the scientologists, too.

  22. Jay says:
    May 31, 2005 at 7:01 pm

    Sheila,

    I’m truly hurt that you used the words “arrested development” above in one of your comments about Tom Cruise. Please try to be more sensitive and think carefully before using the name of the funniest show ever on television to in any way describe the man who currently holds the distinction of wearing the biggest asshat in the land.

    Thanks by the way for clueing me in that AD had been renewed for a third season! Made my day. I look forward to continuing to be the only person who thinks it is funny when I say “I’ve made a huge mistake.” Generally, such statements are not well taken in the medicine business. Ha!

  23. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 8:27 pm

    JFH – I know all born-agains aren’t like that, and I completely admit that I am VERY black and white in my views on this. It’s difficult. My experience with them was with the “new convert” – and basically the friendship needed to end. There was an entire personality change. Like – their BRAIN stopped functioning.

    This is not akin to someone who, say, quits drinking … When a friend goes through addiction withdrawal, sometimes relationships have to adjust … you have to be sensitive to this new world the friend is living in. But at least the friend you once knew IS STILL IN THERE.

    And yeah, I fucking can’t stand the judgmental attitude of evangelicals towards other Christians. Yeah, I’m sure that’s just what Christ would have wanted. Whatever. I’m highly intolerant of intolerance. I’m a Catholic, so I’ve had to deal with uppity judgmental superior evangelicals all my life. grrrr

    I guess the thing is, JFH – just to soften my angry comments – is that I distrust evangelism of ANY kind. I distrust “followers”, I guess – especially if they have a glazed unintelligent look in their eyes. This isn’t just a Christian thing – it’s a fundamentalist thing. Madonna kind of has it when she talks about Kabbalah. She talks as though it is THE ONLY WAY to go. She MUST “share” with us her enlightenment. So she can lead the way for us. Tom Cruise is taking that route as well. I am so insulted by that attitude.

    But … rant over. I know not all born-again Christians are like that. I’m probably just talking about the fervent new converts …and the ones whose fervent belief becomes a rigid judgmental philosophy.

  24. red says:
    May 31, 2005 at 8:42 pm

    JFH -

    Here is the comment I was about to add to my last comment:

    “I’m sorry if I insulted your faith. I try to stay away from generalizations, and try to stay away from criticizing someone for what they believe …”

    and then realized the TOPIC of this particular post.

    Hmmm. can you say HYPOCRITE, sheila?

    Anyway, JFH – I am sorry if I offended with my big ol’ generalization. Obviously it’s a sore point, but I apologize.

  25. Alex says:
    June 1, 2005 at 12:39 am

    I would like to chime in here about Cruise being a great actor. I know Sheila, that you like him, and you’re not alone, millions of people do. I have to say though, I don’t know a lot of actors (beside you Sheila, and one other friend of mine) who like his work. There are some, but not a lot.

    Now….here’s the thing for me: I think Cruise is a wonderful VILLIAN. I think there’s a difference. Think of all the roles he’s really terrific in, and that you like him in, and he’s usually playing an asshole. A wonderful actor to me is someone who is who they are in life, as on the screen, but has the ability to morph.

    Cary Grant
    Spencer Tracey
    James Cagney
    Rock Hudson
    Clark Gable

    All these leading men (who Cruise had been compared to at one time or another) is a great ACTOR as well as showing us their personality. And their personalities are charming, suave, interesting, and complex.

    Tom Cruise plays assholes. Really, really well.

    As far as this Cult that he belongs to, I think this is the best thing to happen to all of us in quite some time. The more he screams and touts Scientology and it’s bizarre nature, the more America will wake up to what it really is. The Mafia of Cults.

    ..and then there’s the bloody entertainment value of it all. The Dark Side of me couldn’t be happier about the Meltdown ahead.

    Sorry for spouting off……

  26. red says:
    June 1, 2005 at 1:05 am

    Alex -

    He certainly isn’t on my list of favorite actors – HOWEVER:

    I LOVE him in Jerry Maguire and I LOVE him in Magnolia. I think he’s terrific in those two movies – which I own and watch repeatedly.

    I don’t like him in stuff where he is the main focus. Like most of his movies. He is way WAY better in an ensemble – which jerry Maguire was with a ton of really strong actors around him – and Magnolia where he played a supporting part.

    I’m not a Tom Cruise fan by any stretch of the imagination but in those 2 movies? Cannot imagine ANYONE ELSE in those parts.

    And yeah. It seems to me he’s having a meltdown. Big time. Anything that chips away at the mystique of that evil organization is okay by me!

  27. red says:
    June 1, 2005 at 1:06 am

    Alex – have you seen this?

    hahahaha

    You know what grosses me out and pisses me off? The nitwit shrieking audience. What the fuck are they shrieking about???

  28. JFH says:
    June 1, 2005 at 1:18 am

    Sheila,

    No offense was taken. I’m pretty much in agreement with most of your rant. I’m a Lutheran turned Presbyterian (because I wanted to be in a Christian faith that was hard to spell; that or my wife is of that faith), so I know of what you speak about the “uppity judgmental superior evangelicals all my life.” My only point was that I do to run into quite a lot of evangelicals that are NOT fundementalists (e.g. that don’t go ballistic if I’m drinking a glass of wine in front of them).

    One group, though, that I can’t stand are the WINCs (you know, Witches in Nature’s Colors). These people are REALLY over the top even compared to Scientologists.

  29. Tommy says:
    June 1, 2005 at 1:24 am

    I watched that video, and I thought of a guy I went to school with. He’d be laughing happily along with your story, and he’d turn on a second’s notice to intense and creepy.

    You’d go most of the day thinking you’re on the same page, and then he’d switch gears and you’d realize that you’re not even on the same page.

    That’s the vibe I get very much when I watch that video. Something along the lines of Tom Cruise would be a very, very bad person to have to spend any amount of time in a close space with. I mean, he may try to convert you or whatever.

    Or, he could just start punching you in the throat…

  30. Tommy says:
    June 1, 2005 at 1:27 am

    I just realized I’ve spent way too much time this past week thinking and talking about Tom Cruise.

    I think I need a few beers to derail this train of thought….

  31. Alex says:
    June 1, 2005 at 3:55 am

    I…….must…..have…..that…..video.

  32. Carrie says:
    June 1, 2005 at 6:24 am

    I wish I could find the picture, it was on the web somewhere last week or maybe it was the Enquirer, of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes that just captured it all. Beauty and the beast. Normally Cruise has that boyish handsome-ness that made him a heart-throb, but this photo — maybe it was the light, the (lack of) make-up or retouch, something, but it was like a moment in the Haunted Mansion where you pass the portraits on the wall and they shift from the beautiful lady to the old hag, and if you blink it’s back to the beautiful lady. He looked haggard! His face was craggled, and all of a sudden he was just old. And then, there was this fresh, fountain of youthful beauty he was clinging to and it all made sense. The poor man. The poor girl! Worse than Catherine Zeta and Michael Douglas, because even with the ew factor you do kind of get the sense that they might like each other, maybe. But in that photo of Cruise and Holmes, she was oblivious, she is in the position where she’s scored her teenage fantasy (ok, creepy cause she was like a teenager last week?), but he was like, so desperate, so clingy, it was all about his fears. Sad.

  33. red says:
    June 1, 2005 at 6:51 am

    Carrie – wow. I SO want to see that photo. But I know what you mean … there’s something creepy and off about the pairing.

  34. red says:
    June 1, 2005 at 6:52 am

    tommy:

    HAHAHAHAHA

    Listen. If you’ve spent too much time thinking about Tom Cruise – then you OBVIOUSLY have come to the right blog. Because … er … so have I.

    And you’re so right about the abruptness and intensity of his mood changes.

  35. Independent George says:
    June 1, 2005 at 9:55 am

    I rather enjoy Ross Douthat’s take:

    PPPS – I really like, by the way, how Cruise keeps upping the ante on this whole fiasco. First, he was just squiring Katie Holmes around, and America rolled its eyes and thought it was a publicity stunt. So then he decided that they were going to start officially dating. Nobody believed that, so then he went on Oprah and jumped around on the sofa and talked about how he was in love with her. Which made him a laughingstock. So naturally, there was only one option left.

    Does anybody doubt that some pretty significant part of poor Katie Holmes is wishing that had returned Tom’s calls? (Oh, Katie . . . why don’t you come join my crazy cult?)

    (there are some pretty funny links in the original, which I’m too lazy to reproduce in the excerpt).

  36. Carrie says:
    June 1, 2005 at 11:06 am

    It was in the Enquirer — the two of them at that Legends thing. Man, was he looking haggard, made more so because of her freshness. It was like a drowning man clinging to a lifesaver.

  37. red says:
    June 1, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    Oh, I know the ones. She was wearing a white glittery dress, and towered over him.

  38. Emily says:
    June 1, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    There was some gossip article about Katie Holmes on the Yahoo news site somewhere about her “love” for Tom Cruise and how it’s all the Real Deal. The article cited a poll from People magazine saying that 2/3 of the public aren’t buying it. Not that this matters in any way, I just thought it was hilarious how the article goes on to note that the poll in People was “not scientific.”

    Thanks guys. Otherwise I might have been deluded into believing I’d read something as sound as science in People magazine.

  39. popskull says:
    June 1, 2005 at 5:56 pm

    “I dare him to tell a seriously pms’ing woman not to take a Midol..he’ll get his nuts ripped off.”

    Laura, I believe his nuts are back in the custody of their alien owner on Hale Bopp or whatever the hell L. Ron was on about.